fasteddy8170
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 341
- Reaction score
- 150
I follow a ton disappearance cases. But I have to tell all of you: When I come back to this one every once in a while I always get the feeling of "misdirection", like everything is staged. The interior of the house, the $100 on the dashboard, the latex glove, on and on and on. I get the feeling with this case more than any other I can think of. Just a couple things . . .
1. We must remember: There's no proof Tara ever drove to her house that night after the barbecue. Just because her car ended up there means nothing. In fact, given the car seat position, I'm inclined to believe somebody else drove her car to her home that night. Which leads me to . . .
2. Where did she go after the barbecue? We have to remember: It's a Saturday night. She's an attractive woman who seems to have no problem getting multiple men interested in her. Does a woman like that go home alone on a Saturday night after being in a long-term relationship? My experience says, "No."
3. It's interesting to me: Whoever it was took her purse containing a bunch of stuff that could be traced, took her earrings which could be found and traced to the abductor, her car keys which have absolutely no value without the car itself, BUT leaves $100 cash--the single most untraceable thus most valuable item there. Leads me to believe this had nothing to do with money, even though the interior of the house makes it look like some kind of break-in--with no signs of a break-in I might add.
4. Was the money or the steering wheel ever dusted for prints? I'm sure they were and there's absolutely no chance the public will ever get to find out the results.
5. The latex glove. Did Tara have gloves of that kind in her house? Does anybody know? It seems to me that glove either came from inside her house or from faraway because any of the neighbors would've surely spoken up by now that it was theirs and the garbageman dropped it. The thing I don't get (and this leads me to believe it's a red herring): Why would the abductor take the gloves off before getting in their car/truck/motorcycle or whatever else? Doesn't that seem like a bad choice? I know, maybe they made a mistake but surely somebody would realize they left a glove in the front yard of the place where they just committed a crime. And sure, I know of cases where criminals leave their phones, ID, etc. But this isn't that: This is a case where a glove is left at the scene and it doesn't match any man in Tara's life. Strange.
6. I have a feeling this is what happened: After that barbecue Tara didn't go home. I don't know where she went but it wasn't directly home. By last count she had at least 4 men in her life who wanted or had her attention. And that's the ones we know about. So, she goes to some guy's house that Saturday night. Things go bad. He kills her. Then he takes her clothes and her phone back to her house, making it look like she came home that night. He knocks some things over making it look like it was a burglary. He has access to used latex gloves and throws one in the yard to mislead police. He takes the keys because, well, maybe he threw them in her purse and forgot they were there. In addition, he forgot her earrings because they're still on Tara's ears back at his house. He keeps the purse to make it look like a break-in.
7. The reason I believe the above scenario is because it's very unusual to kill somebody in their own house and then take the body as well. Taking the body only makes things more complicated for the criminal. It's the very reason that successful serial killers who kill people in their homes go un-caught for so long--they kill people where they sleep, sit or stand, then leave. They don't drag dead bodies out into the street. In addition, if somebody killed Tara in her home, where's the blood? If not hers, the criminal's? The DNA? Fingerprints?
8. One more point to make about all this. Tara's car. Not exactly the perfect car to get a body into. Hardly any trunk, tiny backseat, tiny front seat. A nightmare. If we are to believe the criminal drove the car given the position of the seat, why did he drive it? Because he surely didn't drive it to get rid of the body--as in taking Tara's body away from the house. Maybe the seat was staged? Okay. Maybe. But that seems too tricky by half. For the criminal it would've actually been better for him--if it was a he--to leave the seat in Tara's position, if you think about it. If he in fact didn't drive her car but wanted us to think that he did, it totally ruins his scheme of making it look like Tara's house was broken into. It's like you have to make a choice: Either the criminal drove his own car there to break into Tara's house and then used it to dispose of Tara OR Tara was somewhere else and the criminal drove the car to her house to stage the scene--you can't have it both ways.
Just some thoughts on this I've wanted to vent for a while.
1. We must remember: There's no proof Tara ever drove to her house that night after the barbecue. Just because her car ended up there means nothing. In fact, given the car seat position, I'm inclined to believe somebody else drove her car to her home that night. Which leads me to . . .
2. Where did she go after the barbecue? We have to remember: It's a Saturday night. She's an attractive woman who seems to have no problem getting multiple men interested in her. Does a woman like that go home alone on a Saturday night after being in a long-term relationship? My experience says, "No."
3. It's interesting to me: Whoever it was took her purse containing a bunch of stuff that could be traced, took her earrings which could be found and traced to the abductor, her car keys which have absolutely no value without the car itself, BUT leaves $100 cash--the single most untraceable thus most valuable item there. Leads me to believe this had nothing to do with money, even though the interior of the house makes it look like some kind of break-in--with no signs of a break-in I might add.
4. Was the money or the steering wheel ever dusted for prints? I'm sure they were and there's absolutely no chance the public will ever get to find out the results.
5. The latex glove. Did Tara have gloves of that kind in her house? Does anybody know? It seems to me that glove either came from inside her house or from faraway because any of the neighbors would've surely spoken up by now that it was theirs and the garbageman dropped it. The thing I don't get (and this leads me to believe it's a red herring): Why would the abductor take the gloves off before getting in their car/truck/motorcycle or whatever else? Doesn't that seem like a bad choice? I know, maybe they made a mistake but surely somebody would realize they left a glove in the front yard of the place where they just committed a crime. And sure, I know of cases where criminals leave their phones, ID, etc. But this isn't that: This is a case where a glove is left at the scene and it doesn't match any man in Tara's life. Strange.
6. I have a feeling this is what happened: After that barbecue Tara didn't go home. I don't know where she went but it wasn't directly home. By last count she had at least 4 men in her life who wanted or had her attention. And that's the ones we know about. So, she goes to some guy's house that Saturday night. Things go bad. He kills her. Then he takes her clothes and her phone back to her house, making it look like she came home that night. He knocks some things over making it look like it was a burglary. He has access to used latex gloves and throws one in the yard to mislead police. He takes the keys because, well, maybe he threw them in her purse and forgot they were there. In addition, he forgot her earrings because they're still on Tara's ears back at his house. He keeps the purse to make it look like a break-in.
7. The reason I believe the above scenario is because it's very unusual to kill somebody in their own house and then take the body as well. Taking the body only makes things more complicated for the criminal. It's the very reason that successful serial killers who kill people in their homes go un-caught for so long--they kill people where they sleep, sit or stand, then leave. They don't drag dead bodies out into the street. In addition, if somebody killed Tara in her home, where's the blood? If not hers, the criminal's? The DNA? Fingerprints?
8. One more point to make about all this. Tara's car. Not exactly the perfect car to get a body into. Hardly any trunk, tiny backseat, tiny front seat. A nightmare. If we are to believe the criminal drove the car given the position of the seat, why did he drive it? Because he surely didn't drive it to get rid of the body--as in taking Tara's body away from the house. Maybe the seat was staged? Okay. Maybe. But that seems too tricky by half. For the criminal it would've actually been better for him--if it was a he--to leave the seat in Tara's position, if you think about it. If he in fact didn't drive her car but wanted us to think that he did, it totally ruins his scheme of making it look like Tara's house was broken into. It's like you have to make a choice: Either the criminal drove his own car there to break into Tara's house and then used it to dispose of Tara OR Tara was somewhere else and the criminal drove the car to her house to stage the scene--you can't have it both ways.
Just some thoughts on this I've wanted to vent for a while.
